Joanna Bazley
43 Wilton Grove
Wimbledon
London SW19 3QU

29 June 2009

Dear Mrs Bazley,

I am writing in response to your open letter.

Firstly, I am glad you recognise that I am neither personally responsible for the rules, nor have I been accused of any breach of the rules. I do not claim the Additional Costs Allowance, also known as the Second Home Allowance, unlike my Labour predecessor. I submit receipts for all expenditure. My expenses can viewed at http://mpsallowances.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/hocallowances/allowances%2Dby%2Dmp/stephen%2Dhammond/ and I have provided an easy to understand summary version on my website: http://www.stephenhammondmp.com/mp_expenses.asp

I have always argued that MPs' pay and expenses should be transparent and the levels should be independently determined. Indeed, I did so in a Mail on Sunday article in April 2008. I believe that an MP's salary should be benchmarked against an agreed public sector comparator. The comparator should be reviewed once every Parliament and should change annually in line with cost of living.

Equally, the salaries of MPs' staff and their annual office expenditure should be set independently. As to MPs who require two homes as their constituencies are some distance from London, there will need to be a new transparent allowance or perhaps - as in some other countries - the House of Commons should buy some accommodation.

The relative importance of an MP's role and how much MPs should be remunerated are clearly matters of personal view. However, if one were to be objective about remuneration perhaps an MP's salary should be equivalent to a secondary school head teacher, a director or chief executive of a local authority, a GP or a certain grade of civil servant.

I say it is a matter of personal opinion as to the importance of varying jobs, and would cite the example you use. You say the Radio 4 presenter was "highly respected" and got there by "persistence and ability". I would argue that many MPs and certain

Government ministers get there by "persistence and ability". Personally I do not highly regard a Radio 4 presenter or newsreader - their job is at the easier end of the journalistic range. I, along with many others, believe that often the role is secured by serendipity and needs little skill other than the ability to read. Indeed, many people refer to them as "auto cuties".

I understand the charges of "lobby fodder" and of being "a reference point for the multiplicity of constituency work". It is an interesting dichotomy that although the public condemn MPs in general, more and more people write to use seeking help.

The need for Parliamentary reform is pressing. I would suggest the following as measures that would help restore confidence:

1. A fully elected House of Lords - i.e. a new second chamber with new powers.
2. A smaller House of Commons with constituency size equalized across the country.
3. A smaller Government, say limited to 90 ministers and 30 PPSs. So the total "pay roll vote" would constitute a smaller portion of the governing party.
4. Select Committee chairmen and members elected by Parliament.
5. Parliamentary business controlled by Parliament and not the Government, and less use of the time spent tabling Programme Motions so that Bills are properly scrutinised.
6. Extended use of referenda.

I understand the public outcry over MPs' expenses and allowances. I do believe the system needs reform and must be accountable and transparent. I do believe that Parliament and its procedures need change. We must also ensure that "we do not act in haste and repent at leisure" - for rushed legislation is usually bad legislation. We must put in place reforms that are acceptable, accountable, sensible and durable. Modernising the constitution must keep the best of the old and introduce the best of the new.

MPs do have three important roles to play:

1. To act as the advocate against authority on behalf of their constituents.
2. To represent their constituency and its interests both in Parliament and outside.
3. To represent constituency, party and conscience in Parliament and to consider national legislation in the best interest of the three.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Hammond MP